Thank
you for inviting me to speak to you today at the Space Physics and Aeronomy
Section of the American Geophysical Union. George Withbroe, Director of
NASA's Space Physics Division, will provide a "state of the Division"
talk on Thursday afternoon, and will cover many programs specific to Space
Physics. Therefore, I thought I would take this opportunity to address
the broader issues that NASA is facing today. I would like to start by
taking a historical perspective on your field.

The
term 'space physics' is relatively new, having come into formal use at
NASA only in 1987 when the new Division by that name was formed at Headquarters
with Stan Shawhan as its first director. However, the philosophy behind
the melding of the subdisciplines that comprise this field goest back
a long time. For example, in 1905 George Ellery Hale described the reason
for building Cal Tech's Mount Wilson Solar Observatory as:

"...the
investigation of the sun as a typical star in connection with the study
of stellar evolution, and as the central body of the solar system, with
special reference to possible changes in the intensity of its heat radiation,
such as might influence the conditions of life upon the earth."

What
we more typically think of as space physics traces its modern origins
to the late 1940's and early 1950's, when the earliest V-2 rockets were
used to look for cosmic rays and solar ultraviolet radiation. Of course,
space science was not without its difficulties in those early days. Take
Dick Tousey's description of data recovery from those earliest rockets.
He wrote:

"Data
recovery has been effected with comparative ease. If the rocket is blown
apart on the descent, the several parts fall rather slowly, owing to loss
of streamlining. In this case photographic records are usually recovered
without damage..."

This
is the early, fossil record of "quicker and cheaper."

The
original scope of space science encompassed what we now call space physics,
that is, cosmic and heliospheric physics, solar physics, the Earth's ionosphere,
thermosphere and mesosphere, and the planetary magnetospheres, for the
simple reason that such objectives were accessible with the early rockets
and small, relatively simple space missions.

Once
the major discoveries were made, however, space physics moved from exploration
with rockets to relatively detailed study of space phenomena utilizing
larger, comprehensive missions, for coordinated, detailed exploration
of the Earth and planetary magnetospheres. The funding of this, like so
much of S&T, benefited from the cold war investment.

Because
it dominated science in space from the beginning, space physics has a
longer continuous sequence of scientific space missions than any of the
space science disciplines. Because of its origins in in situ science,
it also enjoys more geography in space --from s/c in low Earth orbit to
the Voyagers now at 60 AU.

This
history owes a tremendous debt to the early giants of the space era: experimentalists
like Jim Van Allen, Frank MacDonald, John Simpson, Herb Bridge, Fred Scarf,
Dick Tousey, and Leo Goldberg, to name but a few, and theoreticians like
Gene Parker, George Siscoe, Ian Axford, Sidney Chapman, and Hans Alfven
who provided the early models that brought order to the bewildering array
of observations.

To
these pioneers credit is due in two measures, since first, much of what
they discovered now allows our use of space for ever more sophisticated
scientific, defense, and commercial applications; and second, in the realm
of fundamental science they discovered that space is much more energetic
than had ever been imagined, that plasmas and magnetic fields flow at
supersonic speeds, and that shock and reconnection processes are the rule,
not the exception. Such discoveries laid the foundations for our understanding
of space phenomena quite beyond anything we can observe in detail in any
other astronomical setting, much less duplicate here on Earth.

Space
physics is poised to continue this tradition of discovery. Already the
international space physics communities are joined in the largest program
in the history of space science with an armada of US and international
space missions taking part in a carefully choreographed arrangement in
space. Taken as ensemble these missions are making and will continue to
make unprecedented advances in our understanding of the Sun itself, the
Sun-Earth environment, and the nature of the heliosphere. This ensemble
of 14 space physics missions blends features of programs in astrophysics
and the space earth sciences: it has the vast discovery potential of an
astrophysics "great observatory" and the integrative goals of
the EOS.

Let's
look at the elements that comprise this remarkable assemblage:

the Voyagers and Pioneer missions now exploring the furthest reaches
of our solar system in a quest for the edge of the heliosphere and then
advancing into interstellar space;

the ESA/NASA Ulysses probe now traveling over the north pole of the
Sun and then on to a second set of polar passes during the next solar
maximum at the end of this decade;

the Japanese Yohkoh and Geotail missions (both with US experiments),
both operating for several years now;

NASA's SAMPEX mission (the first Small Explorer mission) launched over
two years ago;

NASA's Wind spacecraft launched just seven months ago and now on its
way to the L1 libration point to measure the solar wind incoming to
the Earth;

the U.S. Polar, and FAST missions, and the joint European/US SOHO and
Cluster missions all scheduled for launch in the next nine months; *
and the joint German/US Equator mission to be launched in 1997, which
along with Geotail, Polar and Wind completes the quartet originally
envisioned over 15 years ago for what was then known as the OPEN program
(Origin of Plasmas in the Earth's Neighborhood).

The
international space physics community has worked long and hard to start
and to plan, develop, and instrument these missions. I personally have
enjoyed very much my interactions with the Wind scientists; it has been
exciting to watch the evolution of this mission from pre-launch woes to
wonderfully successful results.

The
collective results of this space physics constellation of 14 missions
will provide the data for tremendous advances in understanding the cause-effect
chain of plasma processes from the Sun through interplanetary space and
to the Earth's magnetosphere as a complete, coupled system. This knowledge
will have both intrinsic scientific value as well as practical economic
and defense applications, with the potential to re-kindle the public's
appreciation and interest in the study of our Sun and the Earth's space
environment, that is, the field now increasingly referred to as "space
weather."

In
addition to the return from these missions, space physicists have opportunities
for the future. ACE (Astrophysical Composition Explorer) will be launched
in 1997. It will not only do excellent science on the composition of the
full spectrum of space plasmas from the solar wind to cosmic rays, but
it will also provide critical space weather data, via real time solar
wind monitoring for the DOD and NOAA. It will complement Ulysses for its
solar maximum polar passage.

Space
physicists can compete for future Discovery, Explorer, and New Millennium
missions. In fact, Suess-Urey is a solar wind sample return mission that
was selected in February as a potential Discovery follow-on.

The
current state of success of space physicists in defining and developing
the ISTP constellation leads me to the major messages I want to share
with you today, which derive in large part from the NASA Science Policy
Guide that is now nearly finished. This document is the result of more
than a year's work on the part of the NASA Science Council and representatives
from every NASA Center. For lack of time, I've elected to highlight here
only three of the more than a dozen themes in the Guide.

First,
on public communication of science:

This
comes under what we refer to in the Guide as the "Social Contract,"
that is, the need for scientists supported by NASA to communicate the
results from space missions with every level of the public, from schoolchildren
to college students, from the average tax-paying, working Americans to
our senior citizens (who supported the origins of the space sciences with
their tax dollars in the 1950's and 60's and who, by the way, still vote
in large numbers), to textbook writers who influence students and popular
writers who influence a more diverse community, and last but not least
to our elected officials in Washington.

Let's
look at the words Gene Parker used in his introduction to the book The
New Solar Physics:

"It
is the activity of the sun, with its outpouring of hard electromagnetic
radiation, supersonic gas, and magnetic fields, that is the central focus
of modern solar physics. The practical implications are enormous for those
of us that inhabit the surface of the Earth. The astrophysical applications
are enormous for those with an active curiosity about the other stars
and galaxies that populate the cosmos."

Parker
is speaking about knowledge and applications. Yet how many people outside
of space physics understand what we are learning about the Sun and why
it is important? The message about what we do, why we do it, and what
value the results have, have to be conveyed.

I
can assure you that as I speak there are Congressional staffers trying
to figure out what to take out of the FY96 science budget. In spite of
the fact that the new Congress values science in general, the OSS new
starts in particular are an endangered species, precisely because they
are new. This is not the right year, we've been told, to start new things.
The message has not been delivered effectively that these new starts are
an investment in our future. Canceling new starts sends a chilling message
not only to young people interested in careers in science and technology,
but to all Americans. It basically says that economic competitiveness
is not vitalized by science R&D. It says that inspiration and education
are luxuries, not national values. It is a vision bereft of the very things
that make us tick -- our aspirations for ourselves and our children.

No
one else, certainly not industry, is stepping up to make the investment
in fundamental research. The Wall Street Journal last week had an article
showing the diminished investment in R&D among the major US high-tech
companies (AT&T, Gen. Elec., IBM, Xerox, etc.): 33% since 1990!

Should
public communication of science be a responsibility of scientists? Absolutely,
says the White House. In its recent science policy document "Science
in the National Interest," it states that to create a national interest
in science, we will have to make science literacy for all Americans a
national goal. How do scientists do this? Check out OSS's recently published
document called "Partners in Education." This strategic plan
for education describes numerous ways in which scientists can deliver
the message about their results. As an example of NASA's firm intentions
in this area, the Discovery AO potential proposers were required to produce
a communication plan in addition to science, data analysis, and management
plans.

I've
been told by some space physicists that one of the problems that space
physics faces in communicating with the public is that, aside from the
Sun itself, this field is not a "visual" science. To put it
simply, most space physics experiments don't take pictures, they measure
in situ particles and fields. Does this mean its basically uninteresting?
I trust that you don't find this to be true! You may have an extra challenge
in translating such material into something that is understandable to
the non-specialist, but it can be done [COBE example]. Here's a good space
physics example: not too long ago the public was thrilled to hear the
radio signals from the Plasma Wave Experiment on Voyager of the reflection
of shock fronts in the solar wind from what is presumed to be the heliopause.
This was a good example of an important and interesting space physics
discovery that was promptly shared in a compelling way with the public.
[Other examples funded through Advanced Digital Libraries program and
NASA Science Offices]

Let
me share with you two more items in our Science Policy Guide, and then
I'll let you read the full document on the Internet.

On
data analysis and data access:

Our
Science Policy Guide states that within the limitations of its budget,
NASA strives to support the scientific and technical investigations it
has selected and to sponsor the full range of data analysis, theoretical,
and laboratory investigations required to derive scientific, technical,
and other broader benefits from public investments in NASA's research
programs and missions. We felt that it was important that NASA be explicit
about the value of the investment.

It
is NASA's policy that data and/or opportunities to acquire data from NASA's
scientific missions and programs are also made more generally available
to the broader scientific community for investigations not directly supported
by NASA, thereby promoting the use of results from NASA missions as a
national and international resource. We promote ready access to data from
NASA missions (via modern data archiving and communications technologies)
by scientists not directly supported by NASA, as this can also broaden
the base of participation in NASA programs and missions.

At
present, there is no NASA single policy concerning data rights. There
is a wide variety of current practices. For example, an important part
of NASA's MTPE is the design of new data archiving and dissemination architectures.
The goal of MTPE is to distribute space satellite data more widely and
more efficiently. This mission is serving as a role model for the other
science disciplines, many of which have gone , in the past, by the principle
that the data 'belong' to a PI. The data belong to the taxpayer who funds
them. The MTPE model motivates the vision behind our data policy, which
is that NASA data constitute a national resource that can be used by scientists,
policy makers, and the public throughout the country to undertake new
scientific studies, permit wider assessment of the validity of the results
and conclusions from NASA missions, and facilitate broader public understanding
of the value of NASA programs and missions.

It
is therefore NASA policy that all mission data be made publicly available
after the shortest reasonable time in forms which permit a wide range
of users to derive scientific, technical, and other benefits. An additional
benefit to science from this policy is that when data are readily available
quickly for use by a wide range of people, new crosscuts can be made along
interdisciplinary lines that lead to new scientific understandings. This
does not preclude putting the data in a user-friendly, high-quality format
first, nor does it preclude individual investigators having restricted
data usage for a limited time period as a result of succeeding in peer
review.

On
peer review and setting priorities:

The
Science Policy Guide states that along with strategic planning and program
evaluation, the use of peer review is an integral part of NASA's policy
to ensure fairness and quality, and that open competition and peer review
will be the basis for selection for research funding and scientific participation
in NASA flight missions.

The
Policy Guide reflects some realities when you have a program funded by
taxpayers and approved by their elected representatives. Contributions
to broad national needs identified by the Administration or Congress play
a substantial role in establishing priorities and in shaping or arriving
at the decision to proceed with a particular mission or program. NASA
is part of the political system and its priorities are determined within
that context. We think it is important that all our customers understand
this and work with us in informing Congress of the nature and value of
the space science program.

Incidentally,
the Science Policy Guide comes out strongly in favor of the suborbital
program and the need to fund graduate students.

There
are a lot of changes going on at NASA. As a result of the reinvention
and streamlining effort we've reevaluated the primary science roles of
our Centers, decided to phase out or transfer out certain activities,
and enhance other activities where we have world class capability. Centers
will be more interdependent with the external community. We've proposed
establishing science institutes at some Centers to strengthen NASA's science
and to give the external community more access to NASA's immense technical
and engineering capability and facilities.

Change
means opportunities.We've proposed in the budget for a new start for technologically
innovative, small s/c called the New Millenium initiative. We'll ask you
to take a look at what it is possible to do in space physics with this
technology. And there are many other opportunities for missions, especially
when done in partnerships with other agencies, academia, industry, and
internationals. More and more we will leverage our science activity through
broader participation. This will increase the base of support for science
as well. All space science disciplines are being asked to get a strategic
grasp on their future: this means looking at the broader scientific picture
-- the opportunities for interdisciplinary science , or making the scientific
"connections" across fields -- and looking at the broader social
picture -- understanding the context and the climate for the support of
science.

Sources: Speech
came from a webpage which no longer exists.

Copyright information: Gifts of Speech believes that for copyright purposes, this speech is in the public domain since it was made by a U.S. government official. Any use of this speech, however, should show proper attribution to its author.